The public response to the now notorious 2005 Supreme Court decision Kelo v. City of New London changed the landscape of redevelopment law in the United States. In Kelo, the Court held that eminent domain could be used to transfer property from one private party to another private party for purposes of economic development under the Takings Clause of the Constitution. While the ruling itself confirmed a long line of precedent applying a deferential standard of review to the use of eminent domain, the unprecedented public backlash against the decision sparked a flurry of activity on the state level to provide additional protections to property owners. Condemned by figures on the left and the right of the political spectrum and opposed by approximately eighty percent of the American population, the Kelo decision has provoked forty-two states to pass stricter laws curtailing the government’s power to take private property for the purposes of economic development.

Despite the recent attention this issue has received and the reform legislation that has been enacted, there remain significant problems with the effective implementation of these new protections for property owners. This Note addresses the difficulties property owners face in taking advantage of their rights under current eminent domain statutes given the complicated nature of the statutes and the often prohibitive cost of hiring legal representation. As a solution, the Note proposes a simple fee shifting statute that would allow property owners to have their attorney’s fees paid for by redevelopment agencies under certain circumstances. This approach would significantly improve implementation of statutory protections by giving property owners full access to the courts.

A recent Mother Jones article predicting how the Roberts Court would resolve King v. Burwell draws on How Business Fares in the Supreme Court from Volume 97. You can read the article here. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

For nearly one hundred years, the Minnesota Law Review has been a leader amongst academic legal publications. When Professor Henry J. Fletcher launched the journal in 1917, his goal was simple. It was to “contribute a little something to the systematic growth of the whole law.” Since then, the Law [...]

Minnesota Law Review alumnus Tom Cranna was honored at the Annual Banquet this Spring, 45 years after his death. Mr. Cranna was remembered for his contributions to the journal, the school, and the positive impact he had on his family and friends. The Devil’s Lake Journal published a memorial which [...]

The Minnesota Law Review is proud to announce that we are now on Twitter. Follow us @MinnesotaLawRev for information and updates concerning the petition period and deadlines, the opening and closing of article submissions, our 2014 Symposium: Offenders in the Community, and all other news concerning our authors and publications. [...]